 |
|
| Vol. 13 No. 1 January 2011 | Page 6 |
|
|
| Vol. 13 No. 1 January 2011 | Page 6 |
Donald R. Fox
It was my turn to present the Wednesday night devotional, Bible study at the Mayfield church. Since we are blessed with many young folks and teenagers at the Mayfield congregation, I thought a lesson on evolution vs. creation would be interesting. I started off discussing the complexity of our universe and the wonders of our created earth. How wonderfully made we humans are. “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well” (Psalm 139:14).
To illustrate how it would be impossible that order could come from disorder and chaos via the theory of the big bang, I showed the audience a 3 x 5 inch index card. I tore it in half and asked, “How long would it take, if I dropped the two halves on the floor to meet in completeness?” I dropped the two pieces, and of course, they were still divided. Picking the pieces up, I said, “Now with very little intelligence.” I got a good laugh at this point; I put the two pieces together.
Next, I presented a plastic zip-lock bag filled with small pieces of a cut up 3 x 5 index card. I explained that since our universe, our earth and the whole of living beings, the animal kingdom and plant life, are beyond complexity, I asked the same question. “How long would it take, if you toss the pieces on the ground, for them to come together as an intelligently, completed puzzle?” I asked for a volunteer to take the bag full of the cut up index card and to perform a home edition of a big bang experiment. No one volunteered, so I took the bag and gave it to one of our fine, young teenagers. The devotional was over and truly, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).
D. Gene West
A few years ago, there was a discussion going on about whether or not the Scriptures condemn the practice of homosexuality. One of the members of the discussion panel made this statement: “Scripture contains no timeless, normative, moral truths.” In other words, what was wrong in the days of Abraham, Paul or other characters of both the Old and New testaments may have been wrong for them, but that means nothing to us. A preacher stood up in the audience and said to the panel, “Wait a minute, I’m rather confused.” “…people are constantly coming to me and asking if something they have done is wrong and if they need forgiveness. For example, isn’t it always wrong to abuse a child?” A female member of the panel answered, “What counts as abuse differs from society to society; so we can’t really use the word ‘abuse’ without tying it to a historical context.” Wow! In some societies a woman making such a statement as that would be taken out, tied to a post and publicly flogged. Or, she might even be repeatedly raped by a dozen or more men, but if that was tied to the historical context of that society, then no wrong would have been done according to this female relativist! If it is acceptable in some societies, or even in some micro-societies, for children to be molested sexually before the age of consent, and if that is tied to that particular historical context, it is not abuse! Friends, that means that none of us are safe from any predatory pervert that may come down the pike. As a matter of fact, that means there is no such thing as a pervert, predatory or otherwise!
If the moral relativists are right, what are American women doing in Afghanistan attempting to create a better set of conditions for women and children? Let them alone; what they are doing is in its historical context and is perfectly fine. By what rule of rhyme or reason do American women have the right to impose the views of American society upon the people of another nation? If the relativists are right, none whatsoever! Let us get them back home, stop the waste of money and forbid them to further involve themselves in the historical context of that nation, or any other nation.
On the continent of Africa, one of the methods of warfare, set in its historical context, is to bottle the enemy, men, women and children, up in a given geographical area and starve them to death. The United States has interfered with this type of warfare on two or three occasions, claiming that it was inhumane. Some Africa nations have become very angry with us, and rightly so, because this is a part of the historical context in which they live, and it is right for them to inflict this kind of suffering upon their traditional enemies. By what standard would any relativist say that anything that is done in a historical context is wrong if the Scriptures contain no timeless, normative, moral truths?
Let us come to a little more personal matter. Suppose for five generations it has been the historical context in a particular family for the man to beat his wife severely if he is not happy with her performance in cooking, housekeeping, farming or whatever. Suppose a man in the sixth generation comes to a preacher and says, “This has been going on in my family for five generations now; this is the historical context in which we have live. Is there anything at all wrong with a man beating his wife black and blue when she displeases him?” Notwithstanding the fact that the Bible says, “Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,” the preacher would have to say, “No, in your historical context it is alright for you to beat your wife to a pulp because that is what your family has always done. After all, there are no timeless, normative, moral truths in the Bible.” Now, ladies, even those of you who are relativists, are you ready to buy this concept? No, we think not because it is your ox that is being gored, is it not?
Such statements respecting historical context demonstrate that relativists have taken flight from the realities of life as well as leave of their senses. Who is going to believe anything they say?